Reputation report with score

ABSTRACT

An online reputation assessment of an individual is performed. A reputation score is determined based on the performed online reputation assessment. The reputation score is provided as output. In some cases, the reputation score is provided to an entity that is not the individual, for example, based on the receipt of an authorization from the individual to disclose the score to the entity.

CROSS REFERENCE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 13/725,863, entitled REPUTATION REPORT WITH SCORE filed Dec.21, 2012 which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Increasingly, when a first person chooses to learn more about a secondperson, the first person will perform an online search with respect tothe second person. Unfortunately, the search results may be inaccurateor provide an incomplete picture of the second person. The first personmay make important and potentially erroneous decisions about the secondperson based on the search results.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the followingdetailed description and the accompanying drawings.

FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an environment in which reputationreports are provided.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a reputation report platform.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a process for generating a reputationreport.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of an interface for coding documents.

FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a reputation report.

FIG. 6 illustrates a portion of a reputation report.

FIG. 7 illustrates a portion of a reputation report.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as aprocess; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computerprogram product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or aprocessor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions storedon and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In thisspecification, these implementations, or any other form that theinvention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, theorder of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within thescope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as aprocessor or a memory described as being configured to perform a taskmay be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configuredto perform the task at a given time or a specific component that ismanufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing coresconfigured to process data, such as computer program instructions.

A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention isprovided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate theprinciples of the invention. The invention is described in connectionwith such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to anyembodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims andthe invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications andequivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the followingdescription in order to provide a thorough understanding of theinvention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and theinvention may be practiced according to the claims without some or allof these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technicalmaterial that is known in the technical fields related to the inventionhas not been described in detail so that the invention is notunnecessarily obscured.

FIG. 1 illustrates an embodiment of an environment in which reputationreports are provided. In the example shown, the user of client device104 (hereinafter referred to as “Alice”) and the user of client device106 (hereinafter referred to as “Bob”) each interact with reputationreport platform 102 (via network 120) to create and obtain reports thathelp them assess their online reputations. Further, if authorized byBob, the user of client device 108 (hereinafter referred to as“Charlie”) can view Bob's reputation report, or portions thereof. Aswill be described in more detail below, an individual's reputationreport can include recommendations for improving the individual'sreputation, and can also include one or more reputation scores.

Reputation report platform 102 is configured to obtain data pertainingto Alice and Bob from a variety of sources. As shown, such sourcesinclude search engines 132-134, blog server 138, and social networkingsite 136, other sources can also be used, such as news sites, peoplesearch sites. Data can include text (in various formats) as well asimage or other applicable types of information. Reputation reportplatform 102 can obtain the data from sources 132-138 in a variety ofways, including by scraping publicly available information, by using oneor more Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), and/or by usingauthorization/credentials provided by individuals such as Alice and Bob.As one example of the latter case, Bob may have an account on socialnetworking site 136 but have privacy settings on his profile that limitthe profile's visibility to the public. Bob can provide credentials orother authorization to reputation report platform 102 so that platform102 can access Bob's profile, and also, potentially, view otherinformation on site 136 that would be visible to Bob when logged intothe site but not otherwise visible to platform 102.

FIG. 2 illustrates an embodiment of a reputation report platform. In theexample shown in FIG. 2, platform 102 comprises standard commerciallyavailable server hardware (e.g., having a multi-core processor 202, 8G+of RAM 204, gigabit network interface adaptor(s) 206, and hard drive(s)208) running a typical server-class operating system (e.g., Linux). Invarious embodiments, platform 102 is implemented across a scalableinfrastructure comprising multiple such servers, solid state drives,and/or other applicable high-performance hardware. Whenever platform 102is described as performing a task, either a single component or a subsetof components or all components of platform 102 may cooperate to performthe task. Similarly, whenever a component of platform 102 is describedas performing a task, a subcomponent may perform the task and/or thecomponent may perform the task in conjunction with other components. Invarious embodiments, portions of platform 102 are provided by one ormore separate devices, including devices provided by third parties.

Generating a Reputation Report

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a process for generating a reputationreport. In some embodiments, process 300 is performed by reputationreport platform 102. The process begins at 302 when a request for areputation report for an individual is received. As one example, supposeAlice visits platform 102 by directing a web browser on client device104 to a web interface provided by platform 102. Through the interface,Alice instructs platform 102 that she would like to obtain an onlinereputation report (e.g., by selecting an appropriate option from amenu). Alice's request is received at 302 by report coordinator 210. Insome embodiments, a request is received at 302 via a third party. Forexample, instead of directly interacting with the interface, arepresentative of platform 102 could interact with the interface onAlice's behalf (e.g., during a phone call or chat session with Alice).

At 304, documents potentially associated with the individual whosereputation report has been requested are retrieved. As one example,after receiving Alice's request at 302, report coordinator 210 instructssearch module 212 to perform a search via search engine 132 fordocuments pertaining to Alice (e.g., by instructing search module 212 toperform a search for “Alice Smith”). In some embodiments, prior to thecommencement of process 300, Alice has registered for an account onplatform 102 and has filled out profile information (e.g., listing herfull name as “Alice Smith.”) In other embodiments, process 300 commenceswhen Alice types her full name into an interface provided by platform102, irrespective of whether Alice has signed up for an account.

The results returned by search engine 132 are an example of documentsretrieved at 302. Portion 304 of the process can be performed in avariety of manners, and can be performed before and/or after theprocessing performed at 302. For example, in some embodiments searchmodule 212 queries multiple sources (e.g. search engines 132 and 134)regarding Alice. Search module 212 can also be configured to querydifferent types of sources (e.g. search engines and social networkingsites). Search results can be obtained and stored (e.g., in storage208), in which case at least some documents retrieved at 304 areretrieved from storage 208 rather than a service such as search engine132.

At 306, a set of codings for at least some of the documents retrieved at304 is performed. In some embodiments, Alice is asked to code at leastsome of the documents. An interface for performing the coding is shownin FIG. 4. As will be explained in more detail below, examples ofcodings include “this document does not pertain to me,” and “this isnegative information about me.” In some embodiments, a default coding of“neutral” is employed. Also as will be explained in more detail below,the codings can be multi-dimensional. For example, a newspaper articledescribing Alice's volunteer work at a local animal shelter can be codedas a “positive” document from a “trustworthy” source, while a socialnetworking rant by a former boyfriend can be coded as a “negative”document pertaining to her “romantic life.” Also, as explained above, athird party can use the interface shown in FIG. 4 on Alice's behalf.

In some embodiments, the documents are at least partially coded byplatform 102. For example, a classifier 214 can be employed to determinea preliminary coding of at least some of the documents, and Alice canoptionally be asked to confirm or adjust the preliminary coding. As oneexample, classifier 214 can use sentiment analysis techniques todetermine whether a document is positive or negative. As anotherexample, classifier 214 can be configured to use the domain from which aresult is retrieved to impute a coding. For example, classifier 214 canbe configured with a list of “positive” sites and “negative” sites, suchthat if an individual's name appears on a charitable organization's page(i.e. “positive”) the result can be automatically coded as positive andif it appears on a sex-offender registry site (i.e. “negative”) theresult can be automatically coded as negative. As yet another example,classifier 214 can be configured to automatically code domains as“trustworthy” or not (or neutral) based on a predefined list, or basedon other information, such as a site's Page Rank. As yet anotherexample, classifier 214 can be configured to automatically code resultsas “credible” or not based on their age. For example, an article thathas been available online for a long period of time can be treated asmore credible than one that was recently added. Classifier 214's codingcan also be used without confirmation from Alice. As another example,platform 102 can be configured to use a service such as Amazon'sMechanical Turk to perform coding and/or preliminary coding.

At 308, a reputation assessment is made by assessor 216 based at leastin part on the coded documents, and at 310, a report is generated. Anexample of a reputation report is shown in FIG. 5. In some embodiments,the report includes recommendations, such as recommendations forimproving one's online reputation. The report can also include one ormore reputation scores, discussed in more detail below.

FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of an interface for coding documents.In some embodiments, interface 400 is shown to an individual requestinga reputation report, as part of a report generation process. Forexample, interface 400 is shown to Alice in conjunction with portion 306of process 300. Specifically, the top results of a search performed bysearch module 212 are presented to Alice, and she is asked to code thoseresults. The top results (i.e., the ones returned first by a searchengine) are the ones most likely to be viewed by other individualstrying to find out more about Alice, and therefore particularlyimportant to her online reputation.

The first result (402) is about a different Alice Smith, so Aliceselects “This is not me” from dropdown 412. Name confusion can cause thereputations of others (i.e., other Alice Smiths) to impact Alice'sreputation. The second result (404) is a positive news article aboutAlice, so she selects “Positive” from dropdown 414. The third result(406) is a third party website page that reveals Alice's telephonenumber, so she selects “Private Info Exposed” from dropdown 416. Otherexamples of labels Alice can use to code documents include “Negative”(indicating that the document says harmful things about Alice) and“Worth Monitoring” (indicating that the document is worth monitoring tomake sure it does not become an issue in the future). Also included foreach result presented in interface 400 is a checkbox (e.g. 430) thatallows Alice to indicate whether she controls the content. For example,if a result displayed in interface 400 is from Alice's personal blog(e.g. hosted on server 138) or her profile on a social networking site(e.g., site 136), Alice would check the checkbox adjacent to thatresult. If the result displayed was authored by someone else (e.g.appearing in a newspaper), Alice would not check the checkbox. In someembodiments, whether or not Alice controls a result is determined byplatform 102. For example, if the result is Alice's profile on a socialnetworking site, platform 102 can automatically conclude that Alice isable to modify the result.

As mentioned above, in some embodiments, platform 102 supportsmulti-dimensional coding. Using result 404 as an example, an example ofa multi-dimensional coding is “Positive” and “Trustworthy.” The seconddimension (trustworthy) indicates that the source—a newspaper—isconsidered a trustworthy source of information. As a contrastingexample, a blog page set up under a pseudonym on a free site might becoded as “Untrustworthy.” Other examples of second dimensions (i.e.,combined with “Positive” or “Negative” to form multi-dimensionalcodings) include topical/biographical areas, such as “Health,” “RomanticRelationships,” “Ethics,” “Competence,” and “Finance.” An articlepraising a surgeon's good outcomes could be coded as“Positive—Competence” and a blog post ridiculing an individual forlosing a large sum of money in Las Vegas could be coded as“Negative—Finance.”

As Alice scrolls down the page presented in interface 400, she will bepresented with additional results to code. For example, the top 20results returned by search engine 132 are presented in interface 400. Insome embodiments, if Alice codes more than a threshold number of resultsas not pertaining to her (412) additional results are shown (i.e. thenext 20 results) and she is asked to code those as well. As needed,results from other sources can also be presented to ensure that asufficient number of results pertaining to Alice have been coded. Forexample, the top 20 results from search engine 132 are presented,followed by the top 10 results from search engine 134, and any resultsfound on server 138 or site 136.

FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of a reputation report. In someembodiments, a report such as report 500 is generated at portion 310 ofprocess 300. As shown, report 500 is rendered in a browser. Report 500can also be provided in other forms, such as by being emailed to Aliceas a PDF document. In region 502 of the report, the number of timesAlice's name has been searched for in a month (e.g., in search engine132, or across multiple sites, as applicable) is presented. According toreport 500, “Alice Smith” has been searched for seven times in the lastmonth. This can help indicate to Alice how important her onlinereputation is (i.e., the more people performing searches for “AliceSmith,” the more people will be exposed to the results and form opinionsabout Alice based on the results.) The data included in region 502 maybe obtainable directly from/in cooperation with sites such as site 132,and can also be computed/extracted as needed where the sites do notexpose the information. For example, suppose as a seller ofadvertisements, search engine 132 makes available an interface thatpotential advertisers can use to see how often a given search time isused. That interface can be used by platform 102 to determine how manytimes “Alice Smith” has been searched for in a given time period.

In region 504 of the report, the percentage of results (e.g. the top 20results reviewed by Alice in interface 400) that are negative/harmful isdisplayed. According to report 500, 5% of the top results for “AliceSmith” are negative.

In region 506 of the report, the percentage of results (e.g., the top 20results reviewed by Alice in interface 400) that arecontrollable/editable by Alice are shown. According to report 500, 30%of the top results for “Alice Smith” are pages such as blog postswritten by Alice, Alice's profile on social networking site 136, and/orother places where Alice can modify what appears there.

In region 508, Alice is alerted that personal information about her isexposed. In example report 500, region 508 shows either a “yes” or a“no.” Alice's report includes a “yes” in this region because her phonenumber is publicly available on a people search site. In otherembodiments, region 508 displays other information, such as byexplicitly stating which information is exposed (e.g., phone number,birthday, home address) and/or the number of sites that expose herinformation.

In region 510, Alice is alerted that at least some of the results in thetop 20 results for “Alice Smith” are not about her, but are about atleast one other individual named Alice Smith. As with region 508, theinformation presented in region 510 can take a variety of forms. Forexample, in some embodiments region 510 indicates the percentage ofpages about Alice vs. other people sharing her name.

Region 520 of report 500 includes an assessment of Alice's reputation.In particular, it highlights to her that one of the results in the top20 results is negative and explains why that is problematic. Additionalassessment information (e.g., warning her about the exposure of herpersonal information) is available to Alice by clicking on region 522.

Region 524 of report 500 includes individualized recommendations for howAlice can improve her online reputation, based on an analysis of the topresults. In particular, Alice owns (i.e., can edit) a fair amount of thetop results. A recommendation is made to Alice that she can push the onenegative result lower (i.e. from appearing in the top 20 results to alower position) by authoring more content, such as more blog posts onher blog (528) or by signing up for professional services. If a resultis coded as negative, and also is coded as being controllable/editableby Alice, a recommendation would be made that Alice edit/otherwiseremove the negative material, since she has the ability to do so.

FIG. 6 illustrates a portion of a reputation report. In addition to thesummary information presented in report 500, details regarding each ofthe top results can be shown to Alice. For example, Alice can be shownthe information presented in FIG. 6 when she scrolls down (530) inreport 500 (or, where the report is a document, such as a PDF, as sheflips through the pages). For each of the top results, a recommendationassociated with the result is displayed. For example, result 9 (602) isa positive result, and a recommendation (604) is made to Alice tomaintain the source. As another example, result 10 (608) is a harmfulresult, and a recommendation (610) is made to Alice that she should burythe result by authoring more content (or having it authored on herbehalf).

Additional Examples of Assessments and Recommendations

The following are additional examples of assessments that can be madeabout an individual's online reputation, and examples of recommendedactions those individuals can take.

Example 1: Individual has at Least One Negative Result in the Top 20

ASSESSMENT: You have negative content in the search results seen by 99%of people who look for you online. According to ACME Interactive, 3 outof 4 individuals would refuse to interact with a person after findingnegative information about them online.

RECOMMENDATION: You have a highly-rated blog. Write more posts or hireus to bury the negative content using ReputationDefender: our expertsstrategically create professional content for you, you review andapprove our writing, and we promote this material online using ourtechnologies. Positive content goes up and negative content goes down.

Example 2: Individual has Private Information Exposed

ASSESSMENT: Your personal information is easily accessible throughpeople-search sites. This type of personal data can be used by identitythieves and stalkers to hurt you and your family. Identity theft costsAmerican consumers $37 billion every year (ACME Research). The personaldata can also be used, unfairly, by those looking to employ, date, or dobusiness with you (e.g., to make decisions based on what part of townyou live in or your age).

RECOMMENDATION: Request that your information be removed from thefollowing sites. We can simplify the safeguarding of your personalinformation using our one-click MyPrivacy program. We automaticallyremove your personal information from the top people-search sites andprevent them from re-adding you again in the future. We also block Webtracking, telemarketers, and unsolicited postal mail.

Example 3: Many of the Results are for a Person that is not theIndividual

ASSESSMENT: Your search results include a lot of information aboutsomebody else. People could think these results are about you, givingthem a bad impression. According to ACME Interactive, 3 out of 4individuals would refuse to interact with a person after findingnegative information about them online.

RECOMMENDATION: You need there to be more results about you in the topresults for your name. Create more of your own content, or have us helpyou bury the misleading items using ReputationDefender: our expertsstrategically create professional content for you, you review andapprove our writing, and we promote this material online using ourtechnologies. Quality items go up and misleading content goes down.

Example 4: Individual has Few Positive Results

ASSESSMENT: You have a limited online presence and are vulnerable tomisrepresentation. Search results can change overnight, and surveys showthat 3 out of 4 individuals would refuse to interact with a person afterfinding negative information about them online (ACME Interactive).

RECOMMENDATION: Expand your online presence by authoring more content,such as by starting a blog or signing up for social networking sites.You can also use ReputationDefender: our experts strategically createprofessional content for you, you review and approve our writing, and wepromote this material online using our technologies. Quality items go upand any misleading content goes down.

Example 5: Individual has Many Positive Results

ASSESSMENT: Congratulations, you currently have a strong onlinepresence. However, search results can change overnight, and surveys showthat 3 out of 4 individuals would refuse to interact with a person afterfinding negative information about them online (ACME Interactive). Makesure to invest into upkeep for your online reputation.

RECOMMENDATION: Allow us to monitor your results. If we notice asignificant change in your online reputation, we'll contact youimmediately and help correct the situation.

Example 6: Individual has Both Negative Content and Privacy Issues

ASSESSMENT: You have negative content in your search results, as well aspeople-search sites that make you vulnerable to identity theft. Threeout of four individuals would refuse to interact with a person afterfinding negative information about them online (ACME Interactive), andidentity theft costs American consumers $37 billion every year (ACMEResearch).

RECOMMENDATION: Bury the negative content by writing more blog posts, orby using our ReputationDefender technology; safeguard your personalinformation by opting out of people-search sites. We can make it easywith our one-click MyPrivacy program.

Reputation Scoring

In some embodiments, reputation report platform 102 includes a scoringengine 218 configured to generate one or more reputation scores. As oneexample, a general reputation score (e.g. “85/100”) can be determinedfor Alice by assigning scores to each of the values appearing in regions502-510 and summing, multiplying, or otherwise aggregating the results.The five factors can be weighted differently, e.g. with “PercentNegative” being given more weight than “Searches on Your Name.” Thescore can be saved (e.g., in storage 208), periodically recomputed, andused to help an individual such as Alice understand how her reputationhas changed over time, and what factors contribute most to how she islikely to be perceived by someone trying to find out more about heronline.

Reputation scores can be included in a report, such as reputation report500, and can also be provided by themselves, without any additionalinformation (and, for example, without a recommendation), omitting ormodifying portion 310 of the process shown in FIG. 3. In someembodiments, instead of a specific value (e.g., 85% or 85/100), athreshold value is applied, and a person having a reputation above thethreshold is acknowledged by platform 102 as being considered“reputable,” while someone with a score not meeting the threshold willnot receive such an acknowledgment. Further, multiple types ofreputation scores can be computed, e.g., pertaining to different aspectsof an individual's reputation. As one example, where multi-dimensionalcoding is used (e.g., at 306), a subset of coded documents can be usedin the analysis performed (e.g., at 308) rather than the entire set. Forexample, only those results coded (whether positive, negative, orneutral) pertaining to a person's professional competence, or to theperson's romantic life, can be used.

In the following example, suppose that Bob would like to conductbusiness with Charlie. In particular, Bob would like to sell his car toCharlie, whom he met by placing a “for sale” advertisement on an onlineclassified advertisement site. Charlie would like assurance that Bob isa reputable individual. Embodiments of reputation report platform 102can be used in a variety of ways, both by Bob, and by Charlie, to helpCharlie feel more comfortable about transacting with Bob.

As explained above, in some embodiments, platform 102 is configured toreceive credentials (or other access authorization) from an individualsuch as Bob, with respect to a variety of services. For example, Bob canprovide to platform 102 his credentials for social networking site 136,allowing platform 102 to access (304) and analyze (306, 308) any privateposts made by or about Bob. In this scenario, all posts will beapplicable to Bob (and not, for example, someone else sharing his name),so Bob will not need to code the results as belonging to him or not.Further, classifier 214 can perform sentiment analysis on the posts, andBob need not code the documents (e.g., as positive or negative) himselfNot enlisting Bob's assistance in coding documents can be done, both asa convenience to Bob, and also (e.g., where Bob shares informationcollected by platform 102 with others, such as Charlie) to help ensurethat Bob does not attempt to game or otherwise tamper with hisreputation information.

As another example, Bob could provide his credentials for an onlineauction site to demonstrate his ownership of a particular account on theauction site having particular feedback. Any credentials provided byBob, and any information scraped from site 136 or the auction site canbe stored in storage 208 as applicable. The documents pertaining to Bobcan be used to generate a score that is sharable with Charlie in avariety of ways. As one example, Bob could provide Charlie's emailaddress to platform 102 and platform 102 could email Charlie Bob'sreputation score. As another example, Bob could instruct platform 102 tomake available his score to Charlie for a limited amount of time (e.g.via a web interface).

In various embodiments, some, but not all aspects of Bob's reputationare considered by platform 102 when performing analysis (and scoring)and/or made available to Charlie. For example, suppose Bob has anaccount on a dating website and has been subject to negative feedbackfrom several of his dates due to his appearance. If Bob's entirereputation was assessed by platform 102 to determine a single reputationscore, Bob's score might appear quite low due to the negative datingreviews. However, Bob's reputation as a prospective date likely has verylittle bearing on whether or not he is sufficiently reputable to sell acar to Charlie. Indeed, other aspects of Bob's reputation (e.g.,determined from blog posts, news articles, data from professionalnetworking sites, and online auction sites) might be very positive andmuch more probative. A report, for a particular purpose (e.g., “transactbusiness with” vs. “date”) can be generated by platform 102 accordingly,by including or excluding certain documents from analysis based on theircoding.

Additional examples of reputation assessments for specific purposes,including reputation for employment, renting real estate,loan/financing, credit-worthiness, and admitting to school (e.g., eachof which might exclude romantic reputation information but include allother aspects). A further example includes pet adoption (e.g., excludingjob/other professional information, but including reputation informationindicative of good character/kindness).

An example of a reputation report that includes a variety of scores isdepicted in FIG. 7. In particular, FIG. 7 includes an overall score forBob (702), as well as scores that focus on his reputation with respectto various aspects of his life (704-708). Bob can learn how each of thescores was determined (and, e.g. the top positive and negative documentscontributing to each) by clicking on a “See why” link (e.g., link 710).In some embodiments, if Bob clicks on link 710, he will be shown contentsimilar to that depicted in FIG. 6 (i.e., listing individual results andproviding recommendations pertinent to the results).

In some embodiments, Bob can provide the output generated by platform102 (e.g. a report similar to report 500 and/or one or more scores) to aprospective employer (or other entity interested in Bob's reputation),allowing the employer to verify that Bob is an upstanding member ofsociety (including on social networks) without requiring Bob to divulgehis credentials to the prospective employer or otherwise compromise hisprivacy. For example, suppose Bob clicks a “Share” link (e.g., link 712)in the interface shown in FIG. 7. In response, platform 102 can ask Boba series of questions, such as who he would like to share theinformation with, at what level of detail, and in what manner. As oneexample, Bob could ask platform 102 to mail score 708 to Charlie. Asanother example, Bob could obtain from platform 102 a temporary link togive to Charlie, that will allow Charlie to view Bob's score 708 for alimited period of time (e.g., one viewing, one day, or one week). As yetanother example, Bob could request platform 102 to generate a report(e.g. as a PDF) and mail it to Charlie.

Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detailfor purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limitedto the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementingthe invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and notrestrictive.

What is claimed is:
 1. A system, comprising: one or more processorsconfigured to: perform an automated preliminary coding of a document,wherein the automated preliminary coding of the document is based atleast in part on at least one of an amount of time that the document hasbeen available online and a domain from which the document wasretrieved; perform an assessment of an online reputation of anindividual, wherein the assessment pertains to a particular aspect ofthe individual's online reputation, and wherein the assessment isperformed based at least in part on the automated preliminary coding ofthe document; and based at least in part on the performed onlinereputation assessment, generate a reputation score pertaining to theparticular aspect of the individual's online reputation; and provide thereputation score as output; and a memory coupled to the one or moreprocessors and configured to provide the one or more processors withinstructions.
 2. The system of claim 1 wherein the one or moreprocessors are configured to generate the reputation score based atleast in part on a plurality of factors, wherein a first factor includesa number of times a search for the individual was performed during atime period.
 3. The system of claim 1 wherein the document is codedalong a plurality of dimensions.
 4. The system of claim 1 wherein theone or more processors are configured to generate the reputation scorebased at least in part on a plurality of factors, wherein a first factorincludes a percentage of coded documents that have been coded as beingpositive.
 5. The system of claim 1 wherein the one or more processorsare configured to generate the reputation score based at least in parton a plurality of factors, wherein a first factor includes a percentageof coded documents that have been coded as being negative.
 6. The systemof claim 1 wherein the one or more processors are configured to generatethe reputation score based on a plurality of factors, wherein a firstfactor includes a percentage of coded documents that have been coded ascontaining content editable by the individual.
 7. The system of claim 1wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate aplurality of reputation scores pertaining to different aspects of theindividual's online reputation.
 8. The system of claim 7 wherein, inresponse to receiving an authorization by the individual, the one ormore processors are configured to make available a subset of theplurality of reputation scores to an entity that is different from theindividual and not make available to the entity at least one reputationscore in the plurality of reputation scores.
 9. The system of claim 7wherein a first reputation score included in the plurality comprises afinancial reputation score.
 10. The system of claim 7 wherein a firstreputation score included in the plurality comprises a relationshipreputation score.
 11. The system of claim 7 wherein a first reputationscore included in the plurality comprises a legal reputation score. 12.The system of claim 7 wherein generating the reputation scores includesweighting a first reputation score and a second reputation scoredifferently.
 13. The system of claim 12 wherein the weighting isperformed at least in part in response to a selection by user of areport type.
 14. The system of claim 1 wherein the one or moreprocessors are further configured to receive an authorization from theindividual and to make the reputation score available to an entity otherthan the individual in response to receiving the authorization.
 15. Thesystem of claim 1 wherein the reputation score is made available to anentity other than the individual for a period of time specified by theindividual.
 16. The system of claim 1 wherein the one or more processorsare configured to determine the reputation score pertaining to theparticular aspect of the individual's online reputation at least in partby using a subset of coded documents pertaining to the particular aspectof the individual's online reputation.
 17. The system of claim 1 whereinperforming the automated preliminary coding of the document comprisesperforming sentiment analysis.
 18. A method, comprising: performing anautomated preliminary coding of a document, wherein the automatedpreliminary coding of the document is based at least in part on at leastone of an amount of time that the document has been available online anda domain from which the document was retrieved; performing, using one ormore processors, an assessment of an online reputation of an individual,wherein the assessment pertains to a particular aspect of theindividual's online reputation, and wherein the assessment is performedbased at least in part on the automated preliminary coding of thedocument; based at least in part on the performed online reputationassessment, generating a reputation score pertaining to the particularaspect of the individual's online reputation; and providing thereputation score as output.
 19. The method of claim 18, wherein thedocument is coded along a plurality of dimensions.
 20. The method ofclaim 18 further comprising generating a plurality of reputation scorespertaining to different aspects of the individual's online reputation.21. The method of claim 20 further comprising receiving an authorizationby the individual, and in response to receiving the authorization,making available a subset of the plurality of reputation scores to anentity that is different from the individual and not making available tothe entity at last one reputation score in the plurality of reputationscores.
 22. The method of claim 20 wherein a first reputation scoreincluded in the plurality comprises a financial reputation score. 23.The method of claim 20 wherein a first reputation score included in theplurality comprises a relationship reputation score.
 24. The method ofclaim 20 wherein a first reputation score included in the pluralitycomprises a legal reputation score.
 25. The method of claim 20 whereingenerating the reputation scores includes weighting a first reputationscore and a second reputation score differently.
 26. The method of claim25 wherein the weighting is performed at least in part in response to aselection by user of a report type.
 27. The method of claim 18 whereinthe reputation score is generated based at least in part on a pluralityof factors, and wherein a first factor includes a number of times asearch for the individual was performed during a time period.
 28. Themethod of claim 18 wherein the reputation score is generated based atleast in part on a plurality of factors, and wherein a first factorincludes a percentage of coded documents that have been coded as beingpositive.
 29. The method of claim 18 wherein the reputation score isgenerated based at least in part on a plurality of factors, and whereina first factor includes a percentage of coded documents that have beencoded as being negative.
 30. The method of claim 18 wherein thereputation score is generated based on a plurality of factors, andwherein a first factor includes a percentage of coded documents thathave been coded as containing content editable by the individual. 31.The method of claim 18 further comprising receiving an authorizationfrom the individual and making the reputation score available to anentity other than the individual in response to receiving theauthorization.
 32. The method of claim 18 wherein the reputation scoreis made available to an entity other than the individual for a period oftime specified by the individual.
 33. The method of claim 18 wherein thereputation score pertaining to the particular aspect of the individual'sonline reputation is determined at least in part by using a subset ofcoded documents pertaining to the particular aspect of the individual'sonline reputation.
 34. The method of claim 18 wherein performing theautomated preliminary coding of the document comprises performingsentiment analysis.
 35. A computer program product embodied in atangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprisingcomputer instructions for: performing an automated preliminary coding ofa document, wherein the automated preliminary coding of the document isbased at least in part on at least one of an amount of time that thedocument has been available online and a domain from which the documentwas retrieved; performing, using one or more processors, an assessmentof an online reputation of an individual, wherein the assessmentpertains to a particular aspect of the individual's online reputation,and wherein the assessment is performed based at least in part on theautomated preliminary coding of the document; based at least in part onthe performed online reputation assessment, generating a reputationscore pertaining to the particular aspect of the individual's onlinereputation; and providing the reputation score as output.